The recent sexual assault in Cologne of women on New Year’s Eve has shocked the nation. As many as 1000 men, allegedly set upon women and made them run a gauntlet as they were grabbed, their clothes ripped, and their bodies groped. Police sources and witnesses have said that many were refugees — triggering renewed objections over a spate of rapes and assaults of women in the country attributed to recent immigrants. To make matters worse for the government, newspapers are reporting that one man told police “I am Syrian. You have to treat me kindly. Mrs Merkel invited me.” The result has been a rising tide of criticism of Merkel for her open-door policy. Yet, that criticism may now be muted by a move by the government to crackdown on anti-immigration comments as a form of “hate speech.” As we discussed today with the effort to ban Donald Trump, free speech is being rolled back in Europe under hate crime and anti-discrimination laws as an alarming rate. It is particularly worrisome when the government is under attack on an issue like immigration and responds by prosecuting people for such criticism. News reports indicate that 18 of the 31 known suspects from Cologne were asylum seekers, including “nine Algerians, eight Moroccans, five Iranians, four Syrians, an Iraqi, a Serbian, an American and two German nationals.
We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws. We have seen comedians targeted with such court orders under this expanding and worrisome trend. (here and here).
Prosecutors are charging people who are “inciting hatred” in Germany by speaking out against immigrants and their impact on German society. Prosecutors and judges are determining what criticism will be allowed and what will be treated as criminal. In the meantime, the government has reached a deal with Facebook, Google and Twitter to crackdown on Internet speech. It is an effort to create the artificial appearance of agreement and tolerance by denying free speech to critics.
While it is still not clear how many of the Cologne attackers were immigrants (as many as 22 have been identified as refugees), the incident has been a flashpoint as numerous stories of women and girls being harassed about their clothing or assaulted by immigrants. For example, a 26-year-old Berlin man’s home was raided by police, who confiscated his computer and phones after he had posted the image of a dead 3-year-old Syrian boy on a Turkish beach and wrote “We are not mourning, we are celebrating!” A disgusting comment and one that is worthy public condemnation. However, it is also an act of free speech.
Nevertheless, many citizens are celebrating the denial of their own free speech rights. So long as they disagree with the speakers, there appears little concern over the rising tide of censorship and criminalization of speech. People are now unsure what they can say about immigration, which is precisely the chilling effect that governments seek in such measure. The result is a forced silence . . . which is golden for governments like Merkel’s that do not like what they are hearing.
The Constitutional Court may not be in Nurnberg. It would be appropriate to have the litigation there though. There is a good book out on the topic. It is by Whitney Harris, one of the prosecutors at the Nuremberg Trials. It is called Tyranny On Trial.
@Hildegard
1, January 9, 2016 at 2:40 pm
“Ken Rogers: I’ve been looking all over for the comment you posted with information regarding the non violent political activist named….Sharpe?”
That would be Gene Sharp:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Sharp
There’s a free download available of his book, From Dictatorship to Democracy, but I’ve purchased a copy to help support his work. Just search the title and “free pdf”
By the way, on your recommendation, I took the enneagram test on the website you linked to, and according to that, I’m predominantly a “4”, having scored a 10 as that “type.”
Please let me know what you think of Dr. Sharp’s ideas.
Thank you Ken. I’ll let you know what I think of Gene Sharp. After a quick look I found his ideas are really fascinating. It should be obvious by now that doing the same thing over and over for eons hasn’t worked so we need a brand spanking new approach to these problems that seem to permeate our very DNA.
A Four you say? Interesting! Let me know if you do any further exploration. Just today I got an email from a local Enneagram trainer. I’ve been imploring my boss (a Seven) to procure her business consulting services to help alleviate her MANY personnel issues. Amazingly I’m the only employee she has who is able to get along with her and everyone else. Yesterday I got to hear a good 30 minutes of her venting and it’s getting old!
@bron98
1, January 9, 2016 at 2:03 pm
“Stick to writing songs.” “You are not holding a good hand.”
How about if I write one entitled, “Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is, Duane, and We’ll See” ?
Ken Rogers: I’ve been looking all over for the comment you posted with information regarding the non violent political activist named….Sharpe?
East side, west Side, all around the town….
The Constitution of Germany has provisions stating the right of free speech, assembly and to petititon the government for redress of grievances. If the German government now wants to suppress speech then the right venue to sue the astardBays is in Nuremberg. Anyone out there recall that name? Nuremberg Trials? Yeah. That was when America and the other allies prosecuted Nazi officials for violating human rights.
Oh. Do any of you commenters recall BarkinDog’s prior yaks about The 1933 Parallels? Yes. In 1933 the President of Germany, last name von Hindenburg issued The Reichstag Fire Decree. Alll civil rights were abolished so that the government could go get the communists who burned the German Parliament bldg which is called der Reichstag. The holocaust followed.
Coming soon to a theatre near you.
Beldar has been to Germany for visits and likes the nation state. Beldar is just here to observe and report back to Planet Remulak what I see.
@Gender
Sorry to disturb, gut the German federal constitution court is in Karlsruhe…. Not Nürnberg
Kenny Rogers:
Stick to writing songs.
You should know when to fold them. You are not holding a good hand.
@Nick Spinelli
1, January 9, 2016 at 6:53 am
“This is just another example of how Islam is not compatible w/ Western culture. Islam subjugates women. That liberals here and elsewhere pander to this 7th Century mindset is mind boggling.”
And as most of us are aware, I think, the smaller the mind, the more readily it is boggled.
Speaking of small-mindedness, what if anything distinguishes the nature of your generalizations about Muslims from Hitler’s concerning Jews?
For example:
“His unfailing instinct in such things scents the original soul (die urspruengliche Seele) in everyone, and his hostility is assured to anyone who is not spirit of his spirit. Since the Jew is not the attacked but the attacker, not only anyone who attacks passes as his enemy, but also anyone who resists him. But the means with which he seeks to break such reckless but upright souls is not honest warfare, but lies and slander.
“Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
“The ignorance of the broad masses about the inner nature of the Jew, the lack of instinct and narrow-mindedness of our upper classes, make the people an easy victim for this Jewish campaign of lies.
“While from innate cowardice the upper classes turn away from a man whom the Jew attacks with lies and slander, the broad masses from stupidity or simplicity believe everything. The state authorities either cloak themselves in silence or, what usually happens, in order to put an end to the Jewish press campaign, they persecute the unjustly attacked, which, in the eyes of such an official ass, passes as the preservation of state authority and the safeguarding of law and order.” (Emphasis added)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/kampf.html
@Nick Spinelli
1, January 8, 2016 at 6:12 pm
“Barkin, Merkel is welcoming unchecked refugees w/ open arms, putting the great country of Germany in peril. She needs to be curbed, like a good dog.”
Is this your idea of respecting women with whom you disagree, curbing them like dogs? Your anti-Muslim observation here suggests a somewhat circumscribed respect for women with whom you disagree, doesn’t it?
Merkel grew up in former East Germany. She has always been for the east. The 1991 ‘Reunification tax’ is still on the books. The tax continues to anger Germans in the west as they get no benefit. Even if a German child only has 5 euros in the bank, it gets this tax annually also. She has always been for the east, so has a different mindset than the more prosperous west side.
Man’s Rights
by Ayn Rand
If one wishes to advocate a free society — that is, capitalism — one must realize that its indispensable foundation is the principle of individual rights. If one wishes to uphold individual rights, one must realize that capitalism is the only system that can uphold and protect them. And if one wishes to gauge the relationship of freedom to the goals of today’s intellectuals, one may gauge it by the fact that the concept of individual rights is evaded, distorted, perverted and seldom discussed, most conspicuously seldom by the so-called “conservatives.”
“Rights” are a moral concept — the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others — the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context — the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.
Every political system is based on some code of ethics. The dominant ethics of mankind’s history were variants of the altruist-collectivist doctrine which subordinated the individual to some higher authority, either mystical or social. Consequently, most political systems were variants of the same statist tyranny, differing only in degree, not in basic principle, limited only by the accidents of tradition, of chaos, of bloody strife and periodic collapse. Under all such systems, morality was a code applicable to the individual, but not to society. Society was placed outside the moral law, as its embodiment or source or exclusive interpreter — and the inculcation of self-sacrificial devotion to social duty
was regarded as the main purpose of ethics in man’s earthly existence.
Since there is no such entity as “society,” since society is only a number of individual men, this meant, in practice, that the rulers of society were exempt from moral law; subject only to traditional rituals, they held total power and exacted blind obedience — on the implicit principle of: “The good is that which is good for society (or for the tribe, the race, the nation), and the ruler’s edicts are its voice on earth.”
This was true of all statist
systems, under all variants of the altruist-collectivist ethics, mystical or social. “The Divine Right of Kings” summarizes the political theory of the first — ”Vox populi, vox dei” of the second. As witness: the theocracy of Egypt, with the Pharaoh as an embodied god — the unlimited majority rule or democracy of Athens — the welfare state run by the Emperors of Rome — the Inquisition of the late Middle Ages — the absolute monarchy of France — the welfare state of Bismarck’s Prussia — the gas chambers of Nazi Germany — the slaughterhouse of the Soviet Union.
All these political systems were expressions of the altruist-collectivist ethics — and their common characteristic is the fact that society stood above the moral law, as an omnipotent, sovereign whim worshiper. Thus, politically, all these systems were variants of an amoral society.
The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.
The principle of man’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system — as a limitation on the power of the state, as man’s protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history.
All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of …
https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights/Mans-Rights#filter-bar
How can anyone blame Bush for the Recession with a straight face?
It was Democrats who pushed for lending to the poor. Affirmative Action on a socioeconomic scale. Prior to this, banks lent to people they thought would pay them back – A paper loans with good credit, good savings, a steady income, and a set debt-to-income ratio. In other words, a safe risk. But then Liberals rode in so government could save the day. They determined that this was entirely racist and bigoted. They successfully lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy “affordable housing” loans to the poor. And true to AA standards, they set an initial quota of 30%. Then the HUD increased that quota to 50%. Imagine that – half of all loans bought were made to low income borrowers. What could go wrong? It was literally impossible to find A paper loans for poor borrowers at a quantity of 50%. So, again true to AA, they lowered the bar, even accepting no downpayment loans. The FHA and VA and the Community Reinvestment Act (lending to riskier borrowers) followed suit. Banks were required to make these subprime and low income loans.
The entirely predictable result was the housing bubble burst and the ensuing economic recession. When the bubble burst, financial institutions took a hard hit, and the Recession began.
Who opposed the regulation of Fannie and Freddie? Democrats.
Barney Frank infamously said, “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation toward subsidized housing.” But when things went bad, Democrats walked away whistling and blamed Bush.
In an egg-on-face reversal, Frank admitted In 2010, “I hope by next year we’ll have abolished Fannie and Freddie … it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn’t afford and couldn’t really handle once they had it.”
Fiscal responsibility escapes Liberal politicians.
*and an expert too…
Paul C. Schulte.
1, January 9, 2016 at 4:39 am
What the hell is a “salted witch” and why should we care about it?
Paul C. Schulte.
1, January 9, 2016 at 4:52 am
po you are precious. You have such faith in the US Govt. to do its job correctly. You just have not been here long enough.
Paul C. Schulte.
1, January 9, 2016 at 4:55 am
po – she nailed you. Her answer describes your response perfectly.
Paul C. Schulte.
1, January 9, 2016 at 5:03 am
po – you do not believe in natural rights since you cannot define them. You throw the term out there like it should mean something, however you use it incorrectly. Was that the term of the day from CAIR/Muslim Brotherhood?
———————————-
Paul, I am gonna have to start charging you…you are requesting too much of my attention.
Couldn’t you have combined all of those into one paragraph? Or are you still bound to your vow to never write more than 3 phrases together?
But, if I must answer… no need to care about salted witch unless you are a witch. Karen worries.
The only faith I have is that you’ll misinterpret my statements.
Valuable testimony, I thank you.
I used natural rights according to Olly’s standards. So, if you have an issue with its definition, you have an issue with Olly’s definition. Tell him to his face, not obliquely through me.
Which CAIR/Muslim Brotherhood, the ones you said with 6 offices in the White House?
po – different subjects, different comments. And you failed to answer any of my questions. Again you deflect.
Personanongrata:
“The crux of the matter is that prior to 2011 and the start of the Western backed terror war in Syria the Bashar al-Assad government was one of the most stable/secular governments left standing in the Middle East.”
I completely disagree.
Syria has been embroiled in tensions, wars, and coups for most of its 67 year history.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/syrian-civil-war/story?id=20112311
Assad is secular, a socialist, in fact. But he was never a super nice guy. Like other socialist dictatorships, he killed everybody who protested his government. Some protestors wanted democracy, and some wanted extremist Islam. Although the Arab Spring promised democratic reforms, sadly, extremist Islam was the most organized.
Syria has also been a hotbed of terrorist activity and training for many years. Is that your idea of “one of the most stable/secular governments left standing in the Middle East”?
Nick Spinelli
1, January 9, 2016 at 6:53 am
There are few cultures, including the US, that do not have varying degrees of problems w/ sexual assault. However, I am a news junkie. I do not find anywhere but in Europe, roving gangs of immigrant males, sexually assaulting strangers. In most cultures, the main problem is sexual assault by someone the victim knows. This is just another example of how Islam is not compatible w/ Western culture. Islam subjugates women. That liberals here and elsewhere pander to this 7th Century mindset is mind boggling.
…Interviewing and interrogating people for a living, I am an expert @ finding truth.
——————————————-
Nick, ask your buddy trump about his roving bands of Mexicans raping women! Either he lied or you are lying!
As I said before, the only mind that is incompatible with culture, any culture of value is yours.
Why don’t you indulge us and show us how Islam subjugates women? As of this morning, it is the only holy book that deems men and women equal …
I wonder what happened…the old Nick woulda backed up his statements…I think since Prof Turley gave you a talking to, you have been emasculated so much you are just going through the motions of your old troll self…or perhaps your love/hate for Obama is finally taking its toll, permanently 🙂
HAHAHAHAa…finding the truth…
I demand an inquiry into every case Nick worked! I pity the hundreds of poor souls languishing behind bar based on the (unavoidably flawed) work of our expert troll..
Nick, the only truth you are an exert at finding is the one that isn’t there
There does not seem to be a specific provision allowing the Irish into Germany or telling us where da white women are at.
I found the German Constitution on Google. Here is the opening portion and it begins with human rights and the right of free expression is included.
Article 1
[Human dignity – Human rights – Legally binding force of
basic rights]
(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect
it shall be the duty of all state authority.
(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and
inalienable human rights as the basis of every community,
of peace and of justice in the world.
(3) The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the
executive and the judiciary as directly applicable law.
Article 2
[Personal freedoms]
(1) Every person shall have the right to free development of his
personality insofar as he does not violate the rights
of others or offend against the constitutional order or the
moral law.
(2) Every person shall have the right to life and physical integ-
rity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable. These rights
may be interfered with only pursuant to a law.
Article 3
[Equality before the law]
(1) All persons shall be equal before the law.
(2) Men and women shall have equal rights. The state shall
promote the actual implementation of equal rights for
women and men and take steps to eliminate disadvantages
that now exist.
(3) No person shall be favoured or disfavoured because of
sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith,
or religious or political opinions. No person shall be
disfavoured because of disability.
Article 4
[Freedom of faith and conscience]
(1) Freedom of faith and of conscience, and freedom to profess
a religious or philosophical creed, shall be inviolable.
I. Basic Rights
15
(2) The undisturbed practice of religion shall be guaranteed.
(3) No person shall be compelled against his conscience to
render military service involving the use of arms. Details
shall be regulated by a federal law.
Article 5
[Freedom of expression, arts and sciences]
(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and dis-
seminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and
to inform himself without hindrance from generally acces-
sible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of report-
ing by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed.
There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of gen-
eral laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons,
and in the right to personal honour.
(3) Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free.
The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from
allegiance to the constitution.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Article 6
[Marriage – Family – Children]
“Does not seem in the above you were referring to one person in particular, you were talking about Islam as the coalition of Muslims, or a Muslim (to be a Muslim) as the brand name…virulent disease…””
Po,
It is apparent what “seems” to you is consistent with what “seems” to Philadelphia’s Mayor. I’m not walking anything back. You have one fundamental problem and that is a significant quantity of people are currently attempting to spread an extreme ideology across the globe THEY SAY is consistent with the teachings of Islam. That leaves you with two choices; take a stand against these extremists which would be consistent with a belief in unalienable rights OR take a stand against those that far and wide believe the threat is Islamic extremism. You’ve chosen the latter. As a result, NOTHING that you can possibly say will be believable.
Perhaps others will try to avoid your accusations of bigotry or Islamophobia but not me. You can call me whatever you like but it will not change the facts. A virulent disease carried by men, women and children is currently threatening western cultures. This disease is self-identified as being consistent with the teachings of Islam.
Olly says:
“”That leaves you with two choices; take a stand against these extremists which would be consistent with a belief in unalienable rights OR take a stand against those that far and wide believe the threat is Islamic extremism. You’ve chosen the latter. As a result, NOTHING that you can possibly say will be believable.””
———————-
Wow, Olly, classic case of false dichotomy.
To break it down:
Either I side with the extremists of the left, or I side with the extremists of the right?
No in between?
Can’t I side against the extremists on the left and still believe the threat is not islamic extremism?
So the only right answer is to stand against extremism AND believing that islamic extremism is the threat?
Look, most people haven’t read your silly, illogical post yet…I’ll turn my back so you can delete it. Please.
I’ll pretend you never posted it… go ahead.
Karen has the same problem, her fingers play tricks on her and type the opposite of what her brain dictates. I think it must be the cold.
Those damned fingers!
The exercise pertaining to this blog is to, list the comments that equate to “There, you see. I told you. That proves my point. That incident exemplifies the norm.” and so on. Take a news story and find the blogger that links it to statements like “Islam is incompatible with Western culture.” Then give out points and awards, kind of like the pogo stick blogging.
There is a large percentage of Germans, particularly in cities, who can speak English or follow a movie spoken in English. So I propose promoting the movie Blazing Saddles. The Germans can then see the humor and grasp the prejudices in America back in the days of 1870 or thereabouts.
It is not the question posed in the movie: “Where da white women at?” It is the other response by the Mayor when asked to let the black people into town: “But Not The Irish!”
This movie has a lot of subtle statements and not so subtle statements in it which are revealing about humans.
BarkinDog – there is nothing subtle about Mel Brooks or his films.
Someone on the blog knows the answer. Does Germany have a written Constitution? Is there any provision for expression of speech? How about assembly? How about the right to petition the government for redress of grievances? Can you publish the text here please.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes, but own court for constitutional rights
Englisch Version of the German Constitution http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/